Difference of a Different Kind. Iris Idelson-Shein

of my knowledge the success of every Jewish individual has to do with the keeping of the commandments alone, and if it is possible to be whole and happy without keeping the commandments, why the Greek Socrates and the Indian Zarathustra would be as happy and as complete as any one of the people of Israel.” “Let me know my brother,” Meshulam addressed the ever absent recipient of his letters, “let me know your thoughts on this matter, because your faith is pure and whole, and your wisdom great and deep.”³²

      Like Horowitz before him, then, Euchel utilized the image of the exotic critic in order to raise some extremely radical questions concerning Jewish faith. But whereas Horowitz presented these questions within the framework of a three-way dialogue, in which each and every one of the savage’s inquiries was met by a conclusive answer provided by one of the two Jewish sages, Euchel provided his readers solely with Meshulam’s epistles, and the naïve observer’s skepticism remained in effect unanswered. In this manner, Euchel’s traveler seems to serve precisely the opposite purpose of Horowitz’s savage. While Ira’s questions conveyed a methodical skepticism, which would subsequently serve as a platform for the fortification of Jewish tradition with the building blocks of science and reason, Meshulam’s reflections appear to have manifested Euchel’s genuine ambivalence toward some of the essential principles of the Jewish faith of his time.³³